Ariste Holdings ( Cash Genie )

Enfieldian

Yes, but the OP's debt is now paid and he can feel better about himself.

matttye

Enfieldian wrote: »

Yes, but the OP's debt is now paid and he can feel better about himself.

I'm sure that'll give him a warm fuzzy feeling if he can't afford to eat

DevCoder

The trouble is you cannot prove that the reason was for deceit.

You "assume" that they rang to recover the funds by deceitful means but cannot *prove* that.

If the OP was offered a loan and this subsequently happens after the recovery of the debt as per the t&c's then virtually all your points are voided. The only one left would be the consideration of a persons position, however this would be a very weak point to make a case on.

As mentioned at least the debt is repaid now so thats one less debt for the OP to worry about. The fact that the OP thought taking out another PDL when they had defaulted on one previously and still had monies outstanding is what the OP need to address.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

The trouble is you cannot prove that the reason was for deceit.

You "assume" that they rang to recover the funds by deceitful means but cannot *prove* that.

If the OP was offered a loan and this subsequently happens after the recovery of the debt as per the t&c's then virtually all your points are voided. The only one left would be the consideration of a persons position, however this would be a very weak point to make a case on.

As mentioned at least the debt is repaid now so thats one less debt for the OP to worry about. The fact that the OP thought taking out another PDL when they had defaulted on one previously and still had monies outstanding is what the OP need to address.

The burden of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities (as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases).

Payday loan company calls existing customer who happens to owe money. They have (most likely) tried to obtain money from the details they have on file, but been unable to do so. They call customer and offer a new loan under the name of a different business, which involves being given customer's new bank details. Within 8 minutes they have debited the customer's account.

Thinking about it, honestly, do you think it's more likely they actually wanted to offer a new loan, or more likely they wanted to collect a debt?

I think the point I made about them exploiting the debtor's lack of knowledge about that T&C is also appropriate. They should have made it clear that if he owed any existing money to any of their companies (and named them), then by providing his bank details he would open himself up to them collecting the money.

That term and condition in itself opens them up to misleading people, even if not intentionally.

Caz3121

Marckopite wrote: »

I took out a Payday loan with Cash Genie back in 2011. I had paid back 50% of the loan with them. But then i lost my job and could not afford to pay back the loan anymore.

Had you made a repayment agreement with Cash Genie for the remainder of the loan payments or did you just close your bank account and hope they would forget about it?
Have they (or possibly a debt collector they passed it on to) been contacting you re the outstanding balance? (which is likely accruing additional interest if you have not come to a prior agreement)

DevCoder

The burden of proof is also on the OP to assert, Artiste don't have to prove otherwise.

But the OP agreed to the recovery of the debt methodology when they signed for the cash genie loan. That particular clause is in all of Artiste Holdings T&C's. It wasn't applicable just for the EverydayaPayday loan.

The chances of winning a case with the view of misleading is virtually zero (and anyway a MCOL or similar would just open up the OP for a judgement against them to repay the monies that they actually owed, at the court expense of the OP), the OP should write it off as a lesson learnt and avoid PDL's. Perhaps seek the advice of the DFW board as to how to manage their budget so they are not resorting to PDL's.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

The burden of proof is also on the OP to assert, Artiste don't have to prove otherwise.

But the OP agreed to the recovery of the debt methodology when they signed for the cash genie loan. That particular clause is in all of Artiste Holdings T&C's. It wasn't applicable just for the EverydayaPayday loan.

The chances of winning a case with the view of misleading is virtually zero (and anyway a MCOL or similar would just open up the OP for a judgement against them to repay the monies that they actually owed, at the court expense of the OP), the OP should write it off as a lesson learnt and avoid PDL's. Perhaps seek the advice of the DFW board as to how to manage their budget so they are not resorting to PDL's.

Indeed it is. I think it would be a walk in the park to prove. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's glaringly obvious what their intention was. Their terms and conditions even say that they reserve the right to do this, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that they will pretend to sell new loans with a view to getting bank details!

As I said before, you may have missed it, simply having something in the terms and conditions doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they like. There are still guidelines and rules to be followed.

If the T&Cs say "Please note we reserve the right to punch you in the face if you do not pay back the monies borrowed" that doesn't then give them the right to do so, even if you agreed to it.

The OFT, FOS and other related organisations are there to protect the consumer against the might of these large organisations. These companies can't just ignore the guidelines and do whatever they like.

kerry87_2

Marckopite wrote: »

Hello all i need some help full Advice.

I took out a Payday loan with Cash Genie back in 2011. I had paid back 50% of the loan with them. But then i lost my job and could not afford to pay back the loan anymore.

Last saturday i had a phone call from a company offering me a loan the company's name was Everydayispayday.co.uk

So i thought yes i would try for it the person on the phone guided me through the application process. Taking my Account Number, Sort Code, and Debit Card Number.

The company phoned me at 9.52am and then by 10.am they had taken £120 out of my account. They had tried 5 diffrent times taking money out of my account £100 x 2 £50 £30 £20

Having checked out who Ariste Holdings are i realised that they are a company who own 5 diffrent company's 1 being Every day is payday and also Cash Genie.

When Payday Is Everyday phoned me on saturday they led me to belive that they where a payday loan offering me a loan. but what it turned out to be was Cash Genie tricking me in to getting my new bank details and then going in to my bank and withdrawing money from my account without my authorisation.

Can this be a case of fraud because a company can not ring you up pretending to be from another company in order to get your bank details and then withdraw money from there.

Any help would be appreciated thank you.

Hi,

The exact same thing happened to me and I rang up my bank and they did a chargeback and disputed the payment with Ariste Holdings.

Just tell the bank you have emailed and phoned them numerous times and haven't got anywhere because that is what they will ask you to do first anyway and then they will do a chargeback on your account

DevCoder

matttye wrote: »

Indeed it is. I think it would be a walk in the park to prove. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's glaringly obvious what their intention was. Their terms and conditions even say that they reserve the right to do this, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that they will pretend to sell new loans with a view to getting bank details!

As I said before, you may have missed it, simply having something in the terms and conditions doesn't give them carte blanche to do what they like. There are still guidelines and rules to be followed.

If the T&Cs say "Please note we reserve the right to punch you in the face if you do not pay back the monies borrowed" that doesn't then give them the right to do so, even if you agreed to it.

The OFT, FOS and other related organisations are there to protect the consumer against the might of these large organisations. These companies can't just ignore the guidelines and do whatever they like.

Whilst I agree their tactics could be considered underhand I'm still not sure who you think that disputing this will avoid the need for the repayment of the monies owed, as I said if they did (foolishly in my view) go down the MCOL route if the bank doesnt reverse the charge (the waiting list for a FCA/FOS ruling would make this route of little worth) then the creditor would use that opportunity (at the OP's expense) to get the court to order the OP to repay the funds.

The only positive that could come out of that would be the repayment rate would be determined as by the OP's available funds to repay.

Your T&C of punching someone in the face would of course be deemed as unreasonable, this t&c would appear to be in the same vein as the right to set off that banks employ.

The proviso of our discussion on this (and something the OP doesn't mention) is whether they then got the subsequent loan (which would further fulfil the t&c and make it less unreasonable)

As I said the debt will still be there if the OP does reverse the payment and would appear they have waken the company up with their latest PDL request so could expect the usual phone calls/ letters/ DRA et cetera, it would be more prudent in my view to review their budgeting so they aren't reliant on PDL's and consider the repayment of the debt as something less to worry about now.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

Whilst I agree their tactics could be considered underhand I'm still not sure who you think that disputing this will avoid the need for the repayment of the monies owed, as I said if they did (foolishly in my view) go down the MCOL route if the bank doesnt reverse the charge (the waiting list for a FCA/FOS ruling would make this route of little worth) then the creditor would use that opportunity (at the OP's expense) to get the court to order the OP to repay the funds.

The only positive that could come out of that would be the repayment rate would be determined as by the OP's available funds to repay.

Your T&C of punching someone in the face would of course be deemed as unreasonable, this t&c would appear to be in the same vein as the right to set off that banks employ.

The proviso of our discussion on this (and something the OP doesn't mention) is whether they then got the subsequent loan (which would further fulfil the t&c and make it less unreasonable)

As I said the debt will still be there if the OP does reverse the payment and would appear they have waken the company up with their latest PDL request so could expect the usual phone calls/ letters/ DRA et cetera, it would be more prudent in my view to review their budgeting so they aren't reliant on PDL's and consider the repayment of the debt as something less to worry about now.

I'm not suggesting that he doesn't or shouldn't owe the money, just that they should collect it in accordance with the guidance.

I agree with everything you've said about how it would be prudent to review their budgeting etc.

It's just that in terms of priority, they don't get any lower than payday loan companies If the OP has a mortgage, utility bills, etc to pay, they all get priority. That's why these cretins shouldn't use such underhanded tactics to collect their money. It could mean that they're left with rent, mortage or council tax arrears, or owing on a utility bill, or without food! Clearly such behaviour is unfair, even though they owe the money.